Morning journal and courier., 1887-04-02
THR ROVCOTT.

Prohibited by Statute and Clearly a Criminal Act-The Hare Assertion of The BoYcOtters' Claim Pronounced Startling for a Free Country The HCOurier's'' Position Amply Sustain l ed-The Law Speaks Decidedly.
 The opinion of the Supreme court in the
 celebrated New Haven boycott case known
 as the State vs Glidden ct al. was written by Judge Carpenter, of Hartford. At the
 meeting of the Supreme court judges yester- day the opinion was presented. The text | concerning the principles involved is as fol- lows:
 We will next inquire what is a criminal l conspiracy. In the first place it seems to be l generally conceded that if two or more per | sons confederate and agree together to com l init some crime or misdemeanor such oonfed | eration or agreement is itself an offense.
 Here we are hardly on debatable ground and
 here we will pause and apply this partial definition to this information. A statute
 passed in 1878 provides that "every person | who shall threaten or use any means to intim- | idate any person to compel such person | against his will to do or abstain from doing
 any act which such person has a legal right 1 to do, or shall persistently follow such per son in 8 disorderly manner injure or
 threaten to injure his property with intent
 to intimidate him, shall upon conviction be liable to fine not exceeding $100 or impris- onment in the county jail six months" This
 statute is unquestionably designed as sub
 stitute for the act of 1877, which doubtless had it's origin in the apprehension which pre-
 vailed throughout the country at the time of l and soon after the trouble on the Pennsyl- | vania railroad, during which there was such 1 an immense destruction of property at Pitts
 burg. The operation of that act was limited to railroad, gas and telegraph compa-
 nies. The act of 1878 removed the limitation
 and was designed to protect all persons, nat
 ural or artificial, employers or employees, in
 the management and control of their own
 business It simply extended the remedy. | We cannot therefore limit the act of 1878 to l subjects embraced in the act of 1877 without 1 doing violence to the manifest intention of | the legislature. Do the acts which it is al- l legged the defendants conspired to do fall l within the prohibition of the act of 187Sl | They propose to threaten and use means (the | boycotD to intimidate the Darlington Pub
 fishing company to compel it against | it's will to abstain from doing an l act (to keep in it's employ the workmen of | it's own choice) which it had legal right to l do, and to an act (employ the defendants and 1 such persons as they should name) which it had legal right to abstain from doing. There can be but one answer to the question. The acts proposed are clearly prohibited by ! the statute We might perhaps stop here, but the arguments of the case took much wider range, and the case itself will justify ana the times Tn Wnlcn we i've seem to re- quire more extended examination of the subject. Conspiracies against the gov ernment and conspiracies to hinder or obstruct the administration of justice, which are also regarded as criminal conspiracies need not be considered in this case. It has often been said that q conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means is an of fense. But this is said to be limitation rather than a definition. It certainly lacks
 definition. Many acts are said to be unlaw
 ful which would not be the subject of a
 criminal conspiracy. Other acts are unlaw
 ful because they are in violation of the
 criminal law or of some penal statute. If
 the ends or means are criminal in themselves or contrary to some penal statute, the con spiracy is clearly offense. Between these two extremes 8 great variety of cases may arise, many ot which ought not to be regarded criminal. Suppose two or more boys, for instance agree to go upon another's land; the proposed act IS or may be trespass and therefore unlaw- ful. If they do not go no harm is done; if they do go they are or may be liable civilly, but no one would seriously contend that in either case they would be liable criminally for the conspiracy. But sup pose two or more conspire unjustly and wrongfully to deprive
 another of his liberty or property; then, as we shall hereafter see, the criminal law may
 take cognizanee of the act. Of course it is l
 difficult if not impossible to define accurately l
 and clearly in advance what would and would not be oHense. Hence the difficulty of
 regulating by statute in all cases the law of criminal conspiracy. But this difficulty is not confined to these cases. There other
 otfenses at common law that are not defined by any statute. x Now if we look at this transaction as it appears in the face of this information we shall be satisfied that the defendants purpose was to deprive the Darlington Publishing com T0Q nf its Jhlrty fO ifo hI1si
 in it's own way, although in doing so it in-
 terfered with no right of the defendant. !
 The motion a selfish one, to gain an |
 advantage unjustlv and at the expense |
 of others, and therefore the act was legally I
 corrupt. As means of accomplishing the |
 purpose the parties intended to harm the |
 Darlington Publishing company and there |
 fore it was malicious. It seems strange in 8 | country in which law interferes so little |
 with the liberty of the individual that it l should be necessary to announce from the
 bench that every @an may carry on his i business as he pleases, may do what he will | with his own so long as he does nothing lawful and acts with due regard to the rights of others and that the occasion for such an announcement should be, not an l attempt by government to interfere with the rights of citizens nor by the rich and powerful to oppress the poor, but an attempt by large body of workingmen to control by means little if any better than l force the action of employers. The defendants and their associates said to the Darlington Publishing company: ''You shall discharge the men you have in your employ and you 1 shall hereafter employ only such men wei shall name. It is true we have no interest l in your business, we have no capital invested l therein, are in no wise responsible for it's | success and we do not participate in its prof its, yet we have right to control its man. agement and compel you to submit to our direction" The bare assertion of such a right is startling. The two alleged rights cannot possibly co-exist; one or the other must yield. If the defendants have the right which they claim, then all business enterprises are alike subject to their direc tion. No one is safe in engaging in busi- l ness, for no one knows whether his business affairs are to be directed by intelligence or ignorance-whether law and justice will pro ! tect the business or brute force regardless of 1 law will control it, for it must be remember ed that the exercise of the power if concealed l will by no means be confined to the matter I of employing help. Upon the same prin- ciple and for the same reason the right to determine what business others shall en- gage in, when and where it shall be car ried on, etc., etc., etc., will be demanded | and must be conceded. The principle if i it once obtains 8 fOothold is aggressive l and is not easily checked. It thrives on what it feeds and is insatiate in it's demands. More requires more. If large body of ire sponsible men demand and receive power | outside of law over and above law it is not to be expected that they will be satisfied with moderate and reasonable use of it. All | history proves that abuses and excesses are inevitable. The exercise of irresponsible power by men, like the taste of human blood | by tigers, creates an unappeasable appetite | for more. Business men have 8 general un- | derstanding of their rights under the law and have some degree of confidence that the government through it's courts ho to rio | This confidence is the corner stone of the whole business, but if their rights such only as a secret and irresponsible organiza- tion is willing to concede to them and will receive only such protection as such an organ ization is willing to give, where is that con- idence which is essential to the prosperity of the countrys
 Again, if the alleged right is conceded to the defendants a similar right must be con- ceded to the promoters of the Darlington Publishing company and those with whom they may associate. Otherwise all men are not equal before the law. It logically fol